The Fields were trustees of an estate that had a property for sale. In 1987, they entered into a sale agreement with Brent Paulin, with the buyer being referred to in the sales agreement "Brent Paulin or nominee". It was done this way as Mr Paulin thought he could onsell this property to a third party for a profit before the settlement date. Within two days, Fitton came along and bought Paulin's right to purchase for $15,000.
However, when Fitton's solicitor informed the trustees that he was now the nominee for the purchase, they refused to deal with him directly, as they were worried that by dealing with a nominee, rather than Paulin, they might be liable for two separate amounts of stamp duty. The trustees continued to deal with Paulin directly, however as Paulin had sold his interest, he ignored their requests to continue with the sale process, resulting in no settlement on settlement day. As a result, the vendors cancelled the sale.
Mr Fitton, not happy with this development, sued the trustees, challenging the cancellation, claiming that under sections 4 and 8 of the Contracts (Privity) Act, he had all the legal rights to the sales agreement that Paulin had.
Verdictedit
Section 4 required a nominee to be "designated by name, description or reference to a class", and here this requirement was not met, as "or nominee" was not specific enough, as all that was nominated was a "bare nominee".
Bisson J stated "It is difficult to treat a bare nominee, not designated by name, as a person identified by description or as being within a designated class of persons. The nominee could be anyone at all. In the context of S.4 'designated' means specified or identified, so that if the nominee is not named, the word 'nominee' in the contract should be qualified by the addition of a descriptive phrase or the addition of the particular class within which the nominee falls, so as to specify or identify the nominee in the manner required by s 4"
This meant that the Contracts (Privity) Act did not apply here. But the legal argument was moot, as due to the fact that neither Paulin nor Fitton settled the sale on the date of settlement, the trustees were able to cancel the sale contract anyway.
Referencesedit
^Gerbic, Philippa; Lawrence, Martin (2003). Understanding Commercial Law (5th ed.). LexisNexis. ISBN0-408-71714-9.
^Chetwin, Maree; Graw, Stephen; Tiong, Raymond (2006). An introduction to the Law of Contract in New Zealand (4th ed.). Thomson Brookers. p. 185. ISBN0-86472-555-8.
field, fitton, this, article, multiple, issues, please, help, improve, discuss, these, issues, talk, page, learn, when, remove, these, template, messages, topic, this, article, meet, wikipedia, general, notability, guideline, please, help, demonstrate, notabil. This article has multiple issues Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page Learn how and when to remove these template messages The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia s general notability guideline Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention If notability cannot be shown the article is likely to be merged redirected or deleted Find sources Field v Fitton news newspapers books scholar JSTOR July 2014 Learn how and when to remove this message This article possibly contains original research Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations Statements consisting only of original research should be removed July 2014 Learn how and when to remove this message Learn how and when to remove this message Field v Fitton 1988 1 NZLR 482 is a cited New Zealand case regarding privity of contract 1 2 3 Field v FittonCourtCourt of Appeal of New ZealandFull case nameC R Field appellants v D A Fitton First Respondents amp B Paulin Second Respondent Decided22 March 1988Transcript s Court of Appeal judgment High Court judgmentCourt membershipJudge s sittingMcMullin P Gallen J Bisson JKeywordsprivity of contractBackground editThe Fields were trustees of an estate that had a property for sale In 1987 they entered into a sale agreement with Brent Paulin with the buyer being referred to in the sales agreement Brent Paulin or nominee It was done this way as Mr Paulin thought he could onsell this property to a third party for a profit before the settlement date Within two days Fitton came along and bought Paulin s right to purchase for 15 000 However when Fitton s solicitor informed the trustees that he was now the nominee for the purchase they refused to deal with him directly as they were worried that by dealing with a nominee rather than Paulin they might be liable for two separate amounts of stamp duty The trustees continued to deal with Paulin directly however as Paulin had sold his interest he ignored their requests to continue with the sale process resulting in no settlement on settlement day As a result the vendors cancelled the sale Mr Fitton not happy with this development sued the trustees challenging the cancellation claiming that under sections 4 and 8 of the Contracts Privity Act he had all the legal rights to the sales agreement that Paulin had Verdict editSection 4 required a nominee to be designated by name description or reference to a class and here this requirement was not met as or nominee was not specific enough as all that was nominated was a bare nominee Bisson J stated It is difficult to treat a bare nominee not designated by name as a person identified by description or as being within a designated class of persons The nominee could be anyone at all In the context of S 4 designated means specified or identified so that if the nominee is not named the word nominee in the contract should be qualified by the addition of a descriptive phrase or the addition of the particular class within which the nominee falls so as to specify or identify the nominee in the manner required by s 4 This meant that the Contracts Privity Act did not apply here But the legal argument was moot as due to the fact that neither Paulin nor Fitton settled the sale on the date of settlement the trustees were able to cancel the sale contract anyway References edit Gerbic Philippa Lawrence Martin 2003 Understanding Commercial Law 5th ed LexisNexis ISBN 0 408 71714 9 Chetwin Maree Graw Stephen Tiong Raymond 2006 An introduction to the Law of Contract in New Zealand 4th ed Thomson Brookers p 185 ISBN 0 86472 555 8 Walker Campbell 2004 Butterworths Student Companion Contract 4th ed LexisNexis p 191 192 ISBN 0 408 71770 X nbsp This article relating to case law in New Zealand is a stub You can help Wikipedia by expanding it vte Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Field v Fitton amp oldid 1178795291, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
